Executive Summary
The balance of power among the three branches of government is a cornerstone of the United States Constitution.
However, activist judges have increasingly encroached upon executive authority, undermining the separation of powers.
When judges exceed their constitutional authority by obstructing or overturning executive actions without legitimate constitutional grounds, they not only overstep their role but may also commit acts tantamount to treason and sedition.
This essay explores the legal basis for holding such judges accountable, citing relevant laws, cases, and precedents.
The Constitutional Framework
Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests executive power in the President, granting him authority over the administration of federal agencies and the enforcement of laws.
Conversely, Article III establishes the judicial branch, limiting its role to interpreting the law rather than legislating or executing it. The principle of separation of powers is intended to prevent any branch from usurping the functions of another.
James Madison, in The Federalist Papers No. 47, emphasized that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands… may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” When judges attempt to override executive decisions outside their jurisdiction, they disrupt this balance and engage in judicial tyranny.
Hellbound and Down 